Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com


Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> name wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > name wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > "name" <dohduhdah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1130983102.347606.272200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > name wrote:
> > > > > >> Hello.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Often I look up words at www.m-w.com and I love their online
> > > > > >> dictionary.
> > > > > >> One thing I don't understand though, is why they sometimes partially
> > > > > >> leave out the pronounciation of a word.
> > > > > >> For instance, if you look up the word 'vehement' (which is not exactly
> > > > > >> trivial for a foreigner to pronounce), they only specify how the
> > > > > >> last part of it is pronounced.
> > > > > >> Can anyone please explain what possible rationale might be governing
> > > > > >> their decision to leave out a portion of the pronounciation with no
> > > > > >> obvious way to figure out what it should be (as far as I can see)?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks in advance for any comments, kind regards, Niek
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oops... pronunciation that is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps because they're still following the format of their printed version
> > > > > wherein "vehement" follows "vehemence" ---- assuming that you're looking at
> > > > > the printed page, just above "vehement" will be "vehemence" and it's not
> > > > > necessary to repeat the pronunciation of the "ve-he.." portion. Does make it
> > > > > a bit user-unfriendly, though, when you pull up the on-line version which
> > > > > shows only single entries......
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, thanks. It occurred to me after posting. It would be nice if
> > > > they included some sort of reference to 'vehemence' in their entry for
> > > > 'vehement' so it becomes a little more obvious where to look in order
> > > > to figure out the pronunciation.
> > > > Although they did recently modify their interface to allow for browsing
> > > > words alphabetically.
> > >
> > > It's explained in the front of the dictionary.
> >
> > OK, to some extent.
> >
> > >
> > > Why do people never read the fronts of dictionaries?
> > >
> > > And the print version is cheap enough -- I think the book -- the 11th
> > > Collegiate -- including the CD (which I promptly gave away) was under
> > > $20, and it's a lot easier to use than the on-line version.
> >
> > A book easier to use than the online version?! You must be living in
> > the previous
> > century... I bet you think cooking over a fire is easier than using a
> > microwave too huh?
>
> It's a lot better for an awful lot of recipes. (Yes, I insist on a gas
> stove, not an electric one.)

If you prefer your food to smell like charcoal, sure.

>
> > > For the above reason, if no other.
>
> Your use of the on-line version caused you to post a rather silly
> question here

Oh dear.

> -- on paper, it's perfectly clear that when partial
> pronunciations are given, you're supposed to look at the next entry up
> to get the rest of the word.
>
> Moreover, with a book I can flip among any number of places instantly,
> for instance to compare subtle differences in whatever I'm checking.

My god... you've never tried opening multiple webbrowsers in your life?
It's really quite easy to open m-w.com in several windows to look up
multiple words and compare them side by side.

When I look up a word online it takes me little more effort than a few
mouseclicks. In a dictionary you need to search for words manually
whereas on the computer you instantly get the information you're
looking for.
Also, a really good electronic dictionary (unlike the online version of
m-w.com) would
allow advanced search options, like looking for all entries where a
certain word occurs
in the discription. There is no way you have that kind of manipulative
power to process information in a paper edition. How long do you guess
it would take you to find all entries in a given dictionary that
contain a given word in their discription?
On the computer it would take milliseconds and with a paper edition it
would take hours at least.
People who advocate the use of paper over digitized information are
really quite silly and
fail to understand the basics of information technology.

>
> And I can even consult when I'm at a place where my computer isn't.

They invented laptops (or even palmtops) for that purpose.

> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: REC-10, December 2008
    ... While searching the Web trying to find an e-mail address for Jesse ... Shiedlower, I've come across the following remark that I think is ... So printed versions of dictionaries and encyclopedias ... There may not ever be another paper edition of the full OED, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: "hermetic" -- Re: Hi, Im Marie.
    ... Peter, at least in the USA and Canada "hermitic" is a word. ... entrance along with many others that are recorded in dictionaries? ... Movie mogul, aviation pioneer, hermitic recluse: ... eremite => eremitic ...
    (rec.arts.poems)
  • Re: Invention of the Alphabet
    ... Peter> Where would I even find one? ... Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition; ... Neither do most English word function on their own. ... English->Chinese) dictionaries, but at the same time it is ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Invention of the Alphabet
    ... >> expressions before or after them. ... Peter> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-English dictionary? ... Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition; ... dictionaries. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Invention of the Alphabet
    ... > Peter> Where would I even find one? ... > Peter> under the characters. ... > 'wordness' of Chinese characters based on your Chinese->English (or ... > English->Chinese) dictionaries, but at the same time it is ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast